guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Entropy/Archive 30
---- Upsetting Well, of course Spanish Guild Wiki is a fansite. They aren't competition. We on the other hand, directly compete with their (dare I say, at the time of it's launch, redundant and absolutely pointless?) wiki, and naturally they can't endorse the very thing that inspired and in many cases formed the foundation of their own (rip-off) service. Now I must stop talking before this turns into a wall of text rant. By the way, I've been waiting about 10 hours to post this anti-Anet message, but I will refrain from Qwest-bashing here. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 01:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC) :It's still a slap in the face considering that we once had specialty fansite status - and in fact, could have qualified for even higher...and around the time (I think) that GWW came out, it was revoked. I realize that GWW only supports the English language, and so the "threat" theory is valid. But still...it angers me. I suppose that's how things always are in corporate business, though...so stupid that the two wikis are separated by basically only a license (and the all-important "ownership", which translates to either +e-peen or $$$). (T/ ) 07:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC) ::Ditto everything Entropy said above. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) :::Ditto again. I wasn't even an active editor here at the time, just a reader, and the whole license/fansite issues were annoying enough to permanently bias me against GWW. —Dr Ishmael 08:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC) :::: Let's just hope that Regina has the decency to give us a answer or at least act as if she is looking for one.I can't believe the answers your getting over there.I wasn't around as a contributer during the dilemma they talk about,so i wouldn't know.But so what if someone sold the wiki, like you said there wasn't a change in quality and from what i believe there wasn't a change in "rules" either,are they just jealous that they didn't get any of the money?I mean even if it's that should that be a reason to deny other people that have nothing to do with the issue information?As far as i know we don't censor any linking to the official wiki ,the thing is that why link to their page of the warrior when we can just link to ours?Isn't more choices better anyways?So what if i think this wiki is more complete and someone over there thinks that one is better, give people both links and let them choose or use both as they see fit. (Delete this biblepagepost if you wish) Durga Dido 07:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Two Words I'm sorry.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 09:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC) :Me too. (T/ ) 10:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC) The music is great. Standing up to what you are is, too. Welcome back. --◄mendel► 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Celebration Hurray, Entropy's still here. It's good to know, although I'm still a bit confused over what happened. That doesn't really matter though, whaat matters is that ENTROPY DIDN'T LEAVE!!! Seriously, Entropy, even though you may not really know us in reall life, we consider you a friend, or at least I do, and I know that others do too. Arcdash 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC) :You keep your friends chained up in the cellar so they may never leave you ever again? Oh wait, hmmm, I mustn't ... there's something I need to do, like, take soem Xmas cookies down to the cellar because ... erm, that's where my room is, yeah, I live in the cellar. Not YOUR cellar, obviously, erm, what can I say? Gotta go! --◄mendel► 01:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Re: "post of leadership" While I am happy to see the concept of the administrative positions named as a non-identical concept from the "post of leadership" in your message, something in what you wrote brought up an issue that has troubled me for a long time. Yes, you have a de facto "post of leadership" on this wiki. It happened due to a combination of factors, and your position as a Bcrat happened to be, IMHO, one of the earlier triggering catalysts that ends up placing you in that post. You have been in a rather unique position in the history of GuildWiki. You see, the GuildWiki community never really had a de facto leader previously (at least going as far back as the GuildWiki history I am acquainted with). Gravewit happened to won the "ownership" of the actual wiki, but he was nowhere near being the community's leader. Nor were the other Bcrats. They were just active community members with the actual system permission to promote other sysops. The ones trusted to be asked to arbitrate just have a fair reputation (and have sysop rights to enforce the result if necessary), but they aren't seen as the de facto leaders of the wiki community either. GuildWiki was led collectively by the active members of the community, many of whom weren't even admins at all. The above sentence is still more or less true today, in terms of what happens in the main article space. On the other hand, much of the community also considers you as a de facto leader, something we didn't use to have. It is hard for me to really decide whether that is a good thing or not. For a healthy wiki that reached critical mass with much more room to grow, I would generally consider having a singular leader at the top as a bad thing. However, for a wiki that from a number of perspectives is already dead (in fact, has been dead for many many months), having a focused leadership might help give a sense of direction to the community, or it might worsen the health of the community such that the singular leader holds/becomes the last straw. Basically, I am worried about the community becoming dependent on having somebody in the "post of leadership". If you did not return, I would not have assumed that post. It's not something that just came with the Bcrat position, and even if I had a perfect score in all the other criteria to be trusted with the post, my semi-inactivity along would have disqualified me from being the leader of the community. If you did not return, I would have continued to observe and see if the post of leadership would have naturally fallen onto somebody else (who probably would not be a bcrat), and if that didn't happen by the time some kind of alarm in my head starts to scream, I would have tried to spend more time on the wiki to try to get the community used to not having a leader again. Back when Mendel was recently promoted to adminship, I told him that it was now his responsibility to doubly make sure that for any stuff he used to do as a user and would be continuing doing as admin, new users will perceive those as stuff they themselves can do also, as opposed to something Mendel does because he's an admin. I feel we have to proactively reinforce the YAV principle, instead of just passively obeying/quoting it. In response to your "request for judgment" from the community, while the outcome you listed were simply whether to continue grant you in the post of leadership, I (with all the authority a fellow community member may command) would "sentence" you something else: :For every person ("A") who valued you and deferred to you as de facto leader, you need to empower somebody ("B") through motivation, encouragement, and/or other means of positive reinforcement such that A will also value B and consider B one of the co-leaders of GuildWiki. A and B can be the same individual. Or in plainer language, you need to make everyone on GuildWiki who considered you as its de facto leader to feel there are other de facto co-leaders. It's not something you can simply solve by promoting Bcrats, because we do have a huge precedents of Bcrats who aren't considered leaders. In any case, I still trust you with the tools of Ban/Del/Prot and user rights management, regardless of what I think about you and the "post of leadership". Moving to a slightly different topic, to your original farewell address, I only responded on the topic of identities on the internet, as that was a topic I had strong opinions about. On the topic of your departure itself, I pointedly ignored it. But now that you are back, I would like to refer you to something I wrote on one of Warwick's talkpages a long time ago. Unfortunately it is now extremely hard to locate because Warwick uses move to archive. If somebody will dig up a list of all my contributions scattered in the histories of the various Warwick talk page articles, that would be quite helpful so that I can actually show Entropy what I wanted to refer her to. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC) :Oh good, so I'm not the only one who is bothered by such things. :p :I know in the past I've (usually) tried to emphasize how what I do is not because of my user rights, and such and such, but I get what you are saying...YAV doesn't just cover that aspect of being valuable. There's also the, shall we call it, "solidarity aspect". We're all brothers and sisters in this together, with intrinsic worth that does not need to be proven to be appreciated. (Correlates to AGF too.) :I'd like to claim that I have never actively sought out to become this leader type person; it wasn't a premeditated plan. Like you say, it is a combination of factors - bureaucrat, "cult of personality", activity, etc. But then again, I've never actively opposed it either. :For your sentence, I would like to imagine that I have served it, but I would probably be overestimating what "certain users" feel about themselves. I try to empower other users, whether through spreading democracy or other means, but I don't have a real "success story" so to speak. I believe that through my influence I have made certain users more important/empowered than they otherwise would have been, but probably not to the standards you have specified. (For that matter, in recent memory I cannot recall anyone who even approaches "co-leader" like status...I begin to see the trouble.) :Lastly, if you could give me even a rough estimate as to when this post would have been, that would help. I probably even know what it is, if you have some contextual clues. (T/ ) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC) ::Rly now... User:Dr ishmael has a good deal of influence when it comes to technical things. You could think of him as a co-leader of sorts. 07:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :::It's not about who Entropy personally thinks is a co-leader, it's about everyone who thinks Entropy is a leader also thinks that at least one other person co-leads. And not everyone who accepts Entropy as a leader would necessarily consider the same person B as a co-leader. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::I was not attempting to persuade Entropy per se, Pan; I was pointing out that other users already have a leadership role on this wiki, due to their own efforts and abilities. 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ::I would agree with your claim, though the truth of that claim does not alter my main point, because the claim was about intentions, and my point was about an effect that is all too capable of being independent of any intentions. It is fine to consider yourself as having been serving the sentence, but have served to me would imply that you have fulfilled the sentence, to which I would disagree and your own "I begin to see the trouble" admits the lack of fulfillment. Thus you have not completed the sentence yet, despite having started serving it before I named it. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :Pan, I went thorugh your contribs in User talk namespace by the 500s looking for "Warwick" and reviewed all the edits, and except some pretty generic YAV stuff, I could find nothing that would even remotely apply here. (Here's an overview of her archives.) Maybe you wrote that in connection with GW2W somewhere else (e.g. the Community Portal or GW2W itself)? --◄mendel► 06:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC) :P.S. this? 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC) ::Nope that's not it... Maybe I mis-remembered and nothing I wrote when Warwick was pulling warwicks actually was applicable here )-: Blah, so much for my laziness. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::I said it before but w/e. Leadership is not a post, it's a relation. Entropy can't promote other leaderships nor can she choose to be or not to be a leader. I just happens. It's not about being the one, since it's about how we are. So there's no gain in going around looking for prospects, it'll be the way we make it to be, leader or not; Entropy or not. 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Indeed Entropy can't just "promote" others to leadership, and I am not telling Entropy to do that or to look for specific prospects. I'm sentencing Entropy to empower other user B's to develop that relationship with other user A's so that Entropy isn't the only one with that type of relationship with the A's. You would agree with me that Entropy can't just declare "PanSola is now the co-leader", it doesn't work that way. But what Entropy can do is work towards influencing the relationship between Ereanor and other users, between Ish and other user, between every user with each other. Entropy can help encouraging the people who look up to her to be more confident, step up the plate and become more involved, and be more independent. Entropy has such influence exactly because of the relation she holds with others. ::::The community didn't hold an election and explicitly chose Entropy. It just happened. If more and more people become dependent/reliant on having a figure in Entropy's current role around, then if we ever lose Entropy the devastation would be unnecessarily greater than it needed to be. As it was a process that "just happened", I claim it would be overly optimistic to think we can just make it happen again with somebody else exactly when we need it. Thus I argue that it is essential to the health of the community to not have the relationship of leadership be centralized into the basket of a single person. And thus we need more people to have the type of relationship that Entropy has with many on GuildWiki, and that is something Entropy has some degree of influence upon. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC) If we're going to change the leadership model, moving from "supreme leader" to "supreme leader with co-leader" ain't going to cut it. I have seen a good wiki community that gets by with a leadership team, with a blurry border into who's leading without an admin seat, and while we don't have any co-leaders stepping up to the plate, we do have people who can form a team. It takes no nominations, it takes an interest in the wiki and its community, and if you have that and invest time, you're in - it's as simple as that. --◄mendel► 23:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :I do not disagree wit you. I'm not trying to move the model to "supreme leader with co-leader", I am just trying to return to the model of "no single supreme leader". I'm not trying to get an official "co-leader" of GuildWiki, I am trying to have everyone who perceives Entropy as the leader of GuildWiki to also perceive at least one other person to be in an equal position. What one user consider the leaders of GuildWiki to be may or may not be the same as what another user thinks, because it's not an official position, and different people see/notice things differently. Ideally, everyone is a co-leader, but realistically it usually manifests as your description of the "leadership team". Entropy's current relationship with other users gives her leverage in shifting the perception of users, as well as positively encouraging people to be active in the wiki. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC) A question about editing tips Sorry to bother you, do you guys have a page or somthing that explains basic wiki stuff? New to this all....looked at the Editing tips provided, feel like there is still a good bit I have no idea about. Bad soles 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC) :Most of us learn as we go, Wikipedia has some good guides that you might need to look at, or you can ask an experenced user here, or at any other userpage (almost everyone watches Entropy's page, so it's a good page to start) RandomTime 17:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) :RT's been gone for a while, so I guess he doesn't know about the shared Wikia help system. Check out and you can find help on just about anything wiki-related. —Dr Ishmael 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC) :::Thanks ^.^, seems a good bit of my very, very limited HTML knowledge works for this. Bad soles 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Wiki formating isn't HTML, it's a different (simpler) formatting language RandomTime 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC) :::::GW:EDIT, guys. 23:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::I thought soles had read that, but "editing tips" means just the stuff that the Monaco skin throws up, right? ::::::Anyway, append ?action=render to any wiki page URL and you can look at the source of that to see the HTML that comes out of the wikicode, and yes, you can use some HTML directly, and while some tags are prohibited, actually make wikicode a whole lot more complex than HTML, and almost everything in CSS2 works (except background images, afaik). :::::: Oh, and I have a bonus tip for you: try to make your section titles more telling than just a question. ;-) --◄mendel► 03:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::Another helpful hint is to just watch what others do and learn from that; I've never looked at any of the official help stuffs, instead I learn by examples and copying others' work. :::::::Also, this is my talkpage, and so I reserve the right to keep section headers as ambiguous and unhelpful as I want. :\ (T/ ) 07:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Man oh man I wish I had been here for the drama. To sum up my thoughts on the whole thing: Sorry to see you go/glad to see you back/surprised to discover your penis. There should be a newsletter for these things. — Powersurge360 07:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :Eternal rofls 07:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC) ::... >.> (T/ ) 07:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :::Srsly. Penal discovery is big news. 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC) ::::I don't think the word "Penal" was ever designed to be used in that way... --image:GEO-logo.png[[user:Jioruji_Derako| J'ïörüjï 'Ðērākō.>']][[user talk:Jioruji Derako|.cнаt^']] 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :::::Nothing is impossible in the way of Possessed. 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Pop culture policy change I am shamelessly using your talkpage to advertise. Everyone please read this and tell me what you think. I think it will help with trivia revert wars and related stuff. --Macros 18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :Approved. 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC) ::I agree. Silver Sunlight (T/ ) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC) :::Sounds good, puts down a good idea of what actual trivia is. Arcdash 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Fourthed.-- (Talk) ( ) 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::I thought this was already part of the policy/was the norm. I approve. (Now of course, there will be arguments about what constitutes "oldest", and whether or not the most popular reference ought to be used instead...so perhaps an "Ask Linsey" clause should be added?) (T/ ) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::I already added the "Ask Linsey" clause. :P —Dr Ishmael 05:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::This is the trouble about linking to diffs. Thanks. :) (T/ ) 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::This is the trouble about not using the policy talkpage to discuss the policy. --◄mendel► 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::"This is the public forums", as you've said yourself on numerous occasions. (T/ ) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::I'd say the same thing if this discussion was on teh community portal: if you want to be able to find the comments later, they need to be near the page they pertain to, and that is the policy's talkpage, in this case; and of course they can be moved there when the discussion is died down, but it just makes more sense to have them start there to begin with instead of discussing everwhere that the notice is posted. --◄mendel► 06:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::Ditto mendel. But on the "This is the public forums" note, I fear that mentality may foster elitism. This place is useful for catching the attention of a group of GuildWiki regulars. But opacity increases if significant bits of actual matters are discussed here instead of the talk pages of the pertaining topics. That's why I used to do talk-page shuffles, moving even on-going threads from a user talkpage to the pertaining talkpage. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::Many people already point others to this page, and this group of regulars uses the page for anything and everything, including some very actual matters from time to time. I am not adverse to this, because I do not mind my talkpage being treated as the public forums. I don't see any problem with explicitly stating what it implicitly has become. :::::::::::I understand the concerns about paper trails and moving threads to the relevant places, and I could start doing that more if it would help allay your fears. I just don't like moving others' comments/disrupting the flow of conversation. (T/ ) 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::::IMO, this is only a forums for those who know where this place is. Unless you link this page from the sidebar or main page or the community portal talk, I would disagree with the publicness of this forum, and I would consider this place only a forum for the "in-group". Just because some new people get pointed to this place by others doesn't make this place easily accessible to the general public IMHO. (btw, this paragraph is about the general principle. I am aware that on the CP talk regarding this specific issue there is a link pointing here helping transparency for this particular case) -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::::::I changed the title to better reflect this. (T/ ) 07:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::::Well, posting the note makes it more transparent, actually. People are commonly more ready to post to a talkpage than to any "official" page, see for the example the amount of assisstance requests that the docor gets. So the question is, do you want to change the way we do things, or do you want to make it transparent? It may well be the case that only one option is possible. ::::::::::::Doing the moves when archiving at the latest would probably be a good idea. --◄mendel► 07:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::::::I want things to be transparent and easily findable, which means more linking from high-profile talkpages (to get attention) to actual topical talk pages, moving threads when necessary. This does not stop people from asking for help on Entropy's talk page or the Request for Assistance page, they can very much continue to do so. To me it wouldn't be changing the way we do things, but rather unchanging the way things are being done. d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I'm Glad to Have You Back We all get upset sometimes, there's absolutely no need to apologize for what you did IMO. Anger is simply a human emotion, and showing it does not make you any less of a leader, it makes you more of a person. I don't think anyone is going to actually look down at you for saying you would leave and then going back on it. I think I speak for all of us when I say, I'm just extremely happy to have you back!-- (Talk) ( ) 04:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :Thank you. (T/ ) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :"I don't think anyone is going to actually look down at you for saying you would leave and then going back on it." ... One name: Warwick. --- -- ( ) (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::If there is one person in a worse position to look down on people who leave and then come back than Warwick, I must've missed something. --◄mendel► 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::My point was that people are looking down on her for leaving and returning. --- -- ( ) (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::The difference between "I need to take a wikibreak, I can't take it anymore" and "I am never coming back" is one of self-control at the time you are writing this, and possibly one of how quick you are to take this step — I would venture that Entropy and Warwick both must be driven farther than almost anybody else before they would even consider leaving the wiki for any length of time (although things have changed somewhat with Warwick, from what I can tell). I can't possibly look down on this, and I believe anyone who does is completely unjustified in doing so. --◄mendel► 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::Do wiki ppl actually think about something so futile as looking down on other users? Is it even an issue worth discussing? 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::YAV is important? --Shadowcrest 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::Ereanor's point was that there was that it's silly to discuss the inferiority of other users on a wiki. There was no conflict with YAV in his statement. — Nova — ( ) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::I took it to mean that it's not worth discussing violations of YAV (looking down at other users), which is a topic worthy of discussion. --Shadowcrest 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::Ereanor, I believe there is not much that makes wiki people special or better than other people, so yeah, I'm certain soem of them look down on others, as is Viper; even if it's futile. And it's not a violation of YAV to look down on other users if you have reasons. You just can'tlook down on them because of their edit count or their position in the wiki hierarchy. --◄mendel► 23:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Personal Skin I'm a little hazy on this, but could I somehow create my own personal skin for GWiki, and if so, how would I go about doing so? talk 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC) :User:RavynousHunter/monaco.css or User:RavynousHunter/monobook.css, whichever you use. Edit it to do stuffs. 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)